4 ms·

This highlights how lots of managers are just plain not good at their jobs. I'd say that in many startups, MOST managers are not good at their jobs, as they ar

This highlights how lots of managers are just plain not good at their jobs. I'd say that in many startups, MOST managers are not good at their jobs, as they are freshly promoted ICs who have to figure out a new role.

thrashh 3y ago
Most people are not great at their jobs. We’re all on a bell curve.
- cushychicken 3y ago
  I suspect good management, as plotted on a curve, does not follow a Bell curve. I'd suspect it's bimodal, and the "bad" peak is much higher than the good one. Ay least, that's how my own experience maps.
  - c4mpute 3y ago
    Same. I think bad management are people who got into management because it pays better, it is necessary for career advancement or social status. Those people do management because that is what they have to do to get their personal goal, money, promotions, fame. Good managers are people who do it because they like it and they excel at it. Some might have started doing management for different reasons, but stayed because they discovered it to be their thing. That is the reason for that bimodal distribution and why it looks as it does. I think tons of jobs that pay very well, make you famous, etc. actually don't have a bell-curve-distribution for the same reasons.
    - thrashh 3y ago
      What professions start with experienced people out of the bat? People just take what opportunities they can get or they choose to study some field hoping that they like it. And often, a few years in, they learn that they hate their job.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        There is a reason that many organizations have a leveling guidelines that you have to perform at the next level before getting promoted to it.
        lucumo 3y ago
        I've found that that's mostly a fig leaf. It was the primary reason I left places. When I asked how to get the promotion and got that response, I got the promotion by moving to another company. And of course I performed well in the new role, because it never was about performance. It was about people not expecting juniors to grow so quickly to medior, or about not having a free "promotion slot" this year, or it's just not a priority, or other organizational stuff.
        ZephyrBlu 3y ago
        For junior/mid level developers backwards-facing levelling doesn't really matter. For senior it matters more, and for staff/manager it matters a lot more. There are usually organizational constraints like you mention, but that doesn't preclude there being a reason for backwards-facing levelling.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Junior to mid it doesn’t matter. A “senior” and above based on the leveling guidelines at every tech company that I’m aware of is not based on whether you “code well” or even how knowledgeable you are. It’s based on “scope” and “impact”.
        lucumo 3y ago
        As a medior, I've led a team of seniors on a mission critical project for several years, after which my manager said "maybe we should consider promoting you in another year or so". It's not scope and impact either.
  - pfix 3y ago
    > If CEOs were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100. https://a16z.com/2011/03/31/whats-the-most-difficult-ceo-skill-managing-your-own-psychology/ https://a16z.com/2011/03/31/whats-the-most-difficult-ceo-ski...
makeitdouble 3y ago
Wouldn't startups have way less of these issues ? I'm imagining a team of 10 with 3 dev, one "manager" and the other people being business related. Lacking resources would be something coming up naturally in every day conversations, whether a goal will tough to meet or not as well, and the manager's role also get a lot reduced as the political aspects are that more local and constrained. "Get It Done" becomes a different beast once your manager is just one of the 4 layers separating you from the actual decision makers and their goal is just to become the bigger fish in the ocean.
- cushychicken 3y ago
  Maybe, but I sort of doubt it. IC -> mgmt transitions are a messy thing, and I've never personally experienced working at a startup where anyone had enough time to help the new manager get their bearings effectively. (I include myself in that group of people who made the IC->mgmt transition, and flailed.)
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    Good point. I kinda assume startups that have neither experienced managers/leaders nor self sustaining engineers gotta fail fast and we don't hear much about them. I've mostly seen a mixed of both, with either senior staff supporting a youngish business team, or an experienced leader team pulling in youngish staff. The most intersting one was 4 old farts in the office next to us executing on their ideas like they'd play a jazz piece, there was clear tension, they were pretty loud, and the manager guy appeared more like riding a rodeo that playing the HR drone. But they looked crazy efficient.

thrashh 3y ago

Most people are not great at their jobs. We’re all on a bell curve.

cushychicken 3y ago
I suspect good management, as plotted on a curve, does not follow a Bell curve. I'd suspect it's bimodal, and the "bad" peak is much higher than the good one. Ay least, that's how my own experience maps.
- c4mpute 3y ago
  Same. I think bad management are people who got into management because it pays better, it is necessary for career advancement or social status. Those people do management because that is what they have to do to get their personal goal, money, promotions, fame. Good managers are people who do it because they like it and they excel at it. Some might have started doing management for different reasons, but stayed because they discovered it to be their thing. That is the reason for that bimodal distribution and why it looks as it does. I think tons of jobs that pay very well, make you famous, etc. actually don't have a bell-curve-distribution for the same reasons.
  - thrashh 3y ago
    What professions start with experienced people out of the bat? People just take what opportunities they can get or they choose to study some field hoping that they like it. And often, a few years in, they learn that they hate their job.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      There is a reason that many organizations have a leveling guidelines that you have to perform at the next level before getting promoted to it.
      - lucumo 3y ago
        I've found that that's mostly a fig leaf. It was the primary reason I left places. When I asked how to get the promotion and got that response, I got the promotion by moving to another company. And of course I performed well in the new role, because it never was about performance. It was about people not expecting juniors to grow so quickly to medior, or about not having a free "promotion slot" this year, or it's just not a priority, or other organizational stuff.
        ZephyrBlu 3y ago
        For junior/mid level developers backwards-facing levelling doesn't really matter. For senior it matters more, and for staff/manager it matters a lot more. There are usually organizational constraints like you mention, but that doesn't preclude there being a reason for backwards-facing levelling.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Junior to mid it doesn’t matter. A “senior” and above based on the leveling guidelines at every tech company that I’m aware of is not based on whether you “code well” or even how knowledgeable you are. It’s based on “scope” and “impact”.
        lucumo 3y ago
        As a medior, I've led a team of seniors on a mission critical project for several years, after which my manager said "maybe we should consider promoting you in another year or so". It's not scope and impact either.
- pfix 3y ago
  > If CEOs were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100. https://a16z.com/2011/03/31/whats-the-most-difficult-ceo-skill-managing-your-own-psychology/ https://a16z.com/2011/03/31/whats-the-most-difficult-ceo-ski...

makeitdouble 3y ago

Wouldn't startups have way less of these issues ? I'm imagining a team of 10 with 3 dev, one "manager" and the other people being business related. Lacking resources would be something coming up naturally in every day conversations, whether a goal will tough to meet or not as well, and the manager's role also get a lot reduced as the political aspects are that more local and constrained. "Get It Done" becomes a different beast once your manager is just one of the 4 layers separating you from the actual decision makers and their goal is just to become the bigger fish in the ocean.

cushychicken 3y ago
Maybe, but I sort of doubt it. IC -> mgmt transitions are a messy thing, and I've never personally experienced working at a startup where anyone had enough time to help the new manager get their bearings effectively. (I include myself in that group of people who made the IC->mgmt transition, and flailed.)
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Good point. I kinda assume startups that have neither experienced managers/leaders nor self sustaining engineers gotta fail fast and we don't hear much about them. I've mostly seen a mixed of both, with either senior staff supporting a youngish business team, or an experienced leader team pulling in youngish staff. The most intersting one was 4 old farts in the office next to us executing on their ideas like they'd play a jazz piece, there was clear tension, they were pretty loud, and the manager guy appeared more like riding a rodeo that playing the HR drone. But they looked crazy efficient.